And blowback will never stop incurring Western interference in the affairs of sovereign nations.

Another “circle of poop” (thanks Mat & Trey).

Right. And Bill Clinton and George W. Bush were Christian men both elected to office with less than a majority of the popular vote, so anyone who likes one will naturally like the other.

This is true. However, revolutions like the one that happened in 1979 are MUCH less likely to occur under relatively liberal regimes perceived as legitimate by their subjects.

Yes, we know it’s a “clash of civilisations.” Start the genocide. *rolls eyes*

That’s not to say that the CIA & U.S. weren’t wrong to think they can just depose any foreign head of state they don’t like and install their own puppet, and I dont mean to marginalize the leftist movements in Iran who opposed the Shah’s tyranny…

This is the only thing worth remembering. Western interference in the affairs of sovereign nations will never stop incurring blowback.

It’s not quite that simple. The CIA coup a deposition of Mossadegh and installment of the Shah was not the straw that broke the angry recationary theocrat’s back. Nor did the islamists much care about SAVAK either. The islamist factions in Iran were opposed to Mossadegh and openly aided the CIA in their deposing of him.

The Ayatollahs Kashani & Khomeni were monarchists who openly supported (and aided the installment of the Shah) rather than the tyranny of SAVAK it was the reforms of the White Revolution; land reform & women’s suffrage in particular that pissed the Clerics off, particularly as they saw these reforms undermining their traditional authority & power. And when they achieved power themselves, they quickly prohibited “liberal” reforms of the country.

That’s not to say that the CIA & U.S. weren’t wrong to think they can just depose any foreign head of state they don’t like and install their own puppet, and I dont mean to marginalize the leftist movements in Iran who opposed the Shah’s tyranny, but the Theocrats & the big land owners were going to take action against anyone they perceived as stepping on their toes, whether it be Mossadegh or the Shah, who they originally supported then, worked against when they felt he was a threat too.

And today, “Terrists everywhere!” is the convenient coathook on which to hang any bloodlust adventure for the parochial Hulk-smash willful-ignoramuses of the right. Why are we ruled by such idiots?

This is a great point, and it’s absolutely true that over the last few years I have developed a more simplistic, less nuanced set of political views, and sometimes forget the broader meaning of the words liberal and conservative.

I’m just not certain it applies here, at least not to my point. Very commonly, it is the idealogues that end up making the decisions (being the decider, if you will). And the ones that have self-identified, or at least presented themselves as conservatives have tended historically to resist international adventures as they are ultimately bad for tax rates, small government and business. While self-professed liberals were the ones who have historically been much more quick to deploy American military might to “fix” some perceived problem.

Of course, that all changed in this administration, but it is “Wilsonian Democrats”, whether they are truly “liberal” or not, who evolved into neocons…

mikey

And you’re right. I really think we’re actually in agreement here, with the possible exception that, precisely due to it’s perceived economic importance and inherent instability (and we could make a strong case that very instability was created by American, British and European attempts at manipulation), I believe that American troops would have inevitably ended up in Saudi, Iraq, Iran, places where their very presence would have grated on a group of individuals who had been funded, armed and encouraged to a Jihadi/Warrior mindset. Couple that with the indoctrination of some badly twisted religous fundamentalist leaders, and you were going to get a clash of cultures anyway.

America has never be a fair player nor an honest broker in internation affairs. Our gunboats in China, the “Bannana Wars” in Latin America, we have a not-so-proud history of killing people for profits. And I believe that a group of people don’t just wake one day, decide they feel like killing some people, and throw a dart at a map to decide who. It is intellectually dishonest to deny that we in the West have EARNED their enmity. We can argue about the various ways they express their enmity, but the enmity itself is understandable.

It has amazed me, ever since 9/11, that it has been off limits in the discourse to talk about American responsibility for the hatred many people around the world have for us. If you can’t admit that people’s perceptions of America are shaped by American behavior, then you can’t really create a set of policies that will end, or at least mitigate, their hostility towards us.

Logic demands we confront our own actions in crafting a solution to the foreign policy nightmare we have created. Because if you eliminate a discussion of root causes from the discourse, you are left a wingnut, with nothing but endless killing and genocide to use in the world.

mikey

No, it’s not demonstrably false, mikey. Liberalism is allergic to ideologues. What this is more reflective of is the polarisation that occurs in American politics. Isolationism vs. aggressive intervention are manifestations of that kind of dynamic. For a liberal, rejection of one doesn’t necessarily entail the embrace of the other.

It’s easier when you think that liberalism and political affiliation are not in any way connected, and that, in fact, the very idea of political parties and liberalism is a tricky thing.

We are enormously dependent on oil from a lot of places, but we don’t have troops in most of them. We are enormously dependent on trade with China, but we don’t have troops there either. Buying stuff usually works fine without military involvement. The Middle East is a special case because it’s so unstable. I’m talking about the causes of that instability.

Ahh, my favorite game, “History Whatifs”. Actually, these are important questions that really do go to the heart of the question of how much Islamic anger is directed at America due to America’s own actions. But I’m gonna take the position here that due to the American Economy’s ENORMOUS dependency on Middle Eastern Oil, regardless of any of these events, there would have been an American military presesence on the Gulf Oil Fields and therefore the Jihadists would have been goaded into action. Keeping the oil flowing has been the undercurrent of every American Political, Military, Diplomatic and Economic action in the Gulf region since before the second world war.

hose “liberals” where never liberals to begin with.

Actually Mal, I think that is, at least in many cases, demonstrably false. In their more classic definitions, it was Conservatives that argued for American isolationism while true liberals were the ones that clamored for international interventions. See:
Wilson, Woodrow
Roosevelt, Franklin
Kennedy, John

mikey

It returns to being precise though, mikey, when you consider that that definition only reveals that those “liberals” where never liberals to begin with. They were ideologues, and that, above anything else, is anathema to true liberalism.

Fair point, but without the Iranian revolution, do we back Saddam in the 1980′s? Without that support, is Saddam able to threaten Saudi Arabia in 1990? Without that threat, do we keep troops in Saudi Arabia for the next decade? Without that presence, do the Mujahideen turn their efforts against the US?

On the larger point, the Islamic Revolution in Iran was certainly a major milestone in getting us to the truly messed-up place we are today, but it MUST take second place to the largest covert war in history, the CIA/Mujahadeen war against the Soviet army in Afghanistan. That’s where al Quaida was created, and where the whole concept of jihad against the west got it’s legs.

mikey

South Park said it better:

“It’s a circle of poop.”